In his latest roundup of ETS, Dr. Bill Mounce has responded to Dr. Mark Strauss’ paper entitled “Why the English Standard Version Should Not Become the Standard English Version: How to Make a Good Translation Much Better.” Dr. Mounce is the New Testament Chair for the ESV and a friend of Dr. Strauss. As I was reading his reaction to the paper, I couldn’t help but have a few questions.

Now I, and the three people who read my blog would agree, am certainly not a scholar. I realize that what I say on this subject would not even register on the english translation richter scale (ETRS™). However, I do have a vested interest in the discussion. I once was very anti-TNIV and a huge proponent of the ESV. This was mostly due to me parroting the arguments made by others, and had very little to do with actual research on my part. In the past few years, I have come to be ok with the TNIV, then like the TNIV, then use it as one of my main translations. Rick Mansfield, my elementary Greek professor, had no small part to play in this (apologies, Rick, for connecting your name to mine!). That being said, I also use the ESV as one of my main translations. It is, after-all, possible to use both.

I am a big fan of Dr. Mounce. I enjoy reading his submissions to the koinonia blog as well as his other writings. But there are two specific points in his post that I want to comment on.

1. “He kept saying that the ESV has “missed” or “not considered” certain translational issues. While I am sure they were not intentional, these are emotionally charged words that do not help in the debate. They are in essence ad hominem arguments focusing on our competence (or perceived lack thereof) and not on the facts.”

Dr. Mounce acknowledged that there has been hurt on both sides, and their absolutely has. And certainly, some of Dr. Strauss’ comments had some emotionally charged rhetoric (though I do believe his points were valid). However, it seems off to me to call out Dr. Strauss for this when certain proponents of the ESV have continually used emotionally charged language and ad hominem attacks, of an equal and sometimes much greater level. I am not saying it was wrong of Dr. Mounce to state what he did. I do think, that in so doing, he should have called out proponents of other translations for doing the same. To simply boomerang the debate back to the other side is just as unhelpful. I think more people need to take a mediating position and attempt to cool the rhetoric. That’s not to say they should walk on eggshells for the translation they dislike, but certainly there is a lot of fluff rhetoric that can be cut out on both sides.

2. “The inside story of the ESV and specifically our translation guidelines have never been told.”
Honestly, I believe these facts are part of the problem. The story and guidelines are the very things that need to be told. Otherwise, rumors such as a translation being done to subvert gender roles (TNIV) or a translation being done purely as a backlash against egalitarians (ESV) come about and persist. Are these rumors true? Is one true but not the other? I don’t know. The reason I don’t know is that there simply isn’t any transparency in the translation process. There are, however, many accusations flying both ways. Maybe some transparency in the translation process would better for the conversation as a whole. And not just with the ESV (though 8 years is certainly too long for the story to be told), but every translation. I for one want a translation whose purpose is to tell us what the text says, as much as is possible between languages where there is no 1:1 correspondence (and there are none that actually have this). What I don’t want, is propaganda for your particular theology. By you, I do not mean Dr. Mounce and the ESV team, but any and every translation committee.

But, maybe I’m the only one who thinks like this. Only time will tell how the people who actually know what they were doing will allow this conversation to affect the future of translations. Certainly, I have stepped outside my bounds of expertise in translation here, but I don’t believe I have in terms of our shared faith. Let there be more transparency, and more grace. We are brothers and sisters, united in one body. As one suffers, so do we all. Yet, as one is honored, so we all are also.

If you like this article, please share:
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • Print
  • StumbleUpon